Nine
Cidu Bill on Dec 23rd 2009
Did newspapers really find this offensive enough
that they had to replace it with this?
And keep in mind this is a strip in which we come pretty close to seeing actual copulation on a regular basis.
Filed in 9 Chickweed Lane, Bill Bickel, Brooke McEldowney, comic strips, comics, humor | 15 responses so far
Nicole Dec 23rd 2009 at 08:22 am 1
What was offensive in first strip ??? The implication that she was some general’s mistress ???? This is an OIDU … Offense I Don’t Understand
Chennette Dec 23rd 2009 at 08:40 am 2
I read the intended strip on yahoo comics, so didn’t realise there was a replacement in the newspapers…
Frosted Donut Dec 23rd 2009 at 09:23 am 3
It wasn’t substituted in “The Seattle Times” (but, boy, it would sure be confusing if it had been–the substitute strip was from the middle of a story arc).
Hunt Dec 23rd 2009 at 09:46 am 4
How far we’ve come, if the inoffensive strip can use the word “pregnant.”
Keynote Dec 23rd 2009 at 09:57 am 5
It’s not just the fact that she’s being characterized as someone’s mistress; I think the phrase “little bit of skirt” might have raised the flag at some papers. That’s not too far off in meaning from “little piece of tail,” or some such.
Frank the curmudgeon Dec 23rd 2009 at 11:07 am 6
Maybe it wasn’t offensive enough to merit inclusion.
Rasheed Dec 23rd 2009 at 11:37 am 7
The strip wasn’t loading at all on chron.com yesterday, but this replacement strip is there now. I don’t think it was meant to be a censored strip so much as an actual occurence of a strip that got lost in publication. Does this guy have a blog?
WhitneyD Dec 23rd 2009 at 01:09 pm 8
It wasn’t replaced in the LA Times, so this sort of surprises me. Maybe it was just a mistake on the Chron’s part?
Rasheed Dec 23rd 2009 at 02:02 pm 9
I’m thinking chron just lost their strip and threw in a repeat. I have no idea what wound up in print though.
Dyfsunctional Dec 23rd 2009 at 04:49 pm 10
McEldowney has a blog at http://chickweedcafe.blogspot.com/ , but it’s not updated particularly often. From what I’ve read there, if the substitution is as nefarious as it seems, it’s the kind of thing I think he would write about eventually.
In the past, there were one or two instances where McEldowney missed a deadline or something and the syndicate dug up a week of non-arc strips as replacements. I’m willing to bet this is more of a practical matter, or a simple goof, than anything to do with censorship.
Lorraine Dec 23rd 2009 at 09:12 pm 11
the pregnancy one does look like a rerun to me. not 100% sure, but . . .
padraig Dec 24th 2009 at 11:29 am 12
I’m still trying to figure out why the German officer is wearing a Glenn Beck outfit.
Kevin A Dec 24th 2009 at 01:05 pm 13
For those who don’t read the strip: At this point in Grandma’s story, she has been secretly enlisted by officers of the Allies to elicit information from the German prisoners by singing to them and offering them the comfort of memories of their home(land).
Grumpy Smurf Dec 26th 2009 at 05:29 pm 14
It *is* a rerun: look at the © date: replaced is ©2009, and replacement is ©2007.
As both of them have the same issue date, 12-22, I suppose it was just an accidental use of the wrong strip that must differ only by one digit in their filing system.
Using a strip from the same issue date is too much coincidental to be deliberate. If they were motivated by censorship, I suppose they would have chosen a strip outside any story arch, like some “Hallmarks of Felinity”.
Soup Dragon Dec 29th 2009 at 05:21 pm 15
padraig; that’s not a German officer, it’s the Allied camp commander.